Ellis Ross

“I support this bill, but Canadians need help right now. Floods and fires are happening today, and this bill only promises a study that takes two years. The government cut weather radio to save money, which hurts farmers and mariners who do not have internet, yet it sends foreign aid to rich countries like China. We should spend that money helping Canadians and stop delaying real action.”

“Madam Speaker, we are here talking about Bill C-241, the national strategy on flood and drought forecasting act. We are going to hear speeches about how great this is and how needed it is. We agree on this side. This is definitely needed, given the times that we are living through. To be fair to Canadians, this is a strategy that promises to do something in the future; it is not something definitive today that we would be providing Canadians in terms of forecasting. Before I begin the bulk of my speech, I want to talk about the forecasting that is currently done in Canada, through Environment Canada, for example. They do a pretty good job. They do an excellent job, especially when we are talking about the Canadian Coast Guard and the VHF marine system forecasting. There are many mariners on the west coast of British Columbia and across Canada who depend on its service. It really does mean life or death in some of the most treacherous areas of our waters across Canada, so we know full well what it means to be forecasting for future events. Unfortunately though, Environment Canada discontinued its weather radio service on March 16 due to increasing costs and the need for more viable alternatives such as smart phones and weather apps. The weather radio network reached 90% of the Canadian population, but it will be replaced by other services like Alert Ready and the WeatherCAN mobile app. It will continue to provide timely weather information, but this does not talk about those people who do not have that technology, do not have Internet service or do not understand this information age we are living in. When I think about that, I see that we would be cutting back on an essential service that people depend on. In today’s day and age, we are talking about mariners, but we are also talking about farmers who have to predict the weather for their crops. It would be such a cost-saving measure, when we are already hearing speeches about the damage inflicted on Canadians from weather events, the cost to citizens of damage to houses and the cost of damage to infrastructure. As such, we are going to do a budget cut to get rid of weather radio service, but this budget cut is going to affect Canadians. On the other hand, where is Canada sending its money in light of these budget cuts? A large portion goes to foreign aid. There is something wrong with that. Citizens are depending on services like weather radio service, forecasting models that are currently in place for even just the simple matter of going to get groceries, but the government decided to cut those services and send the money overseas to foreign governments. One thing in particular strikes me as way beyond unusual and uncalled for: foreign aid to China. I never imagined China would need foreign aid. This is a country that is turning into an energy superpower in its own right, not with political promises, but they are doing it. They are building some of the largest dams in the world to get off the reliance on crude oil and diesel. They actually started buying up crude oil supplies, given this diesel crisis that the globe is facing, and they have the money to do it. They have the capacity to store this crude oil. At the same time, they started restricting diesel exports. They provide a lot of diesel for the rest of the world, but they have the money and the reserves to basically do that for their own country. In the meantime, Canada is sending them foreign aid. It should almost be the reverse, given our deficit, given our debt and given the fact that two million Canadians are visiting food banks and 34% of them are children. One in four of the people visiting a food bank is a working person who cannot afford groceries. Why are we cutting essential services like weather forecasting when we are sending money to China to help out poor China? It is not poor. I know we are talking about weather forecasting. I know a lot about it in terms of what is happening in B.C., for example, with the forest fires that are devastating our communities, devastating our infrastructure and burning down houses, with entire communities being evacuated. I was there during the floods in Abbotsford. What is our solution? Let us forecast the next one. Let us propose a study that will take us two years. Let us start planning a study right now so we can plan something in the future, despite the impacts that are happening right now. To the citizens watching this right now on CPAC, all those millions of people, I am sorry, but this is not an announcement that something is going to happen today or tomorrow. It is going to take two years for the government to develop a strategy and then present it and debate it. Then maybe the government will come up with something to help with forest fires. The conversation outside this House at least, in earnest, is that we should be doing more to adapt. It is a great conversation, but that is all it is. It is just coffee talk. We are not talking about managing our forests in B.C. to lessen the risk of forest fires. The federal government has a role to play in that. I know government members will get up to say that it is in provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government does have jurisdiction over Crown lands in the provinces across Canada. It has jurisdiction over certain properties. Also, through the Indian Act, it has jurisdiction on reserve lands. This is okay. It is all right. I sat on the committee as well. However, the focus, I think, should be to develop a more robust plan for forecasting for Canadians, especially farmers and mariners, but also to start talking about adaptation and start helping the people who are being afflicted by these disasters. For the most part, a lot of what we are talking about here is already being done at a very foundational level, whether we are talking about insurance companies, Environment Canada or the Coast Guard. Collaboration among provinces, governments, municipalities and first nations should not have to be legislated. People should just pick up a phone. We know what the problem is. We have local knowledge. We have municipal knowledge. We have provincial knowledge. Everybody is facing the same issue. We do not have to spend two years studying this, only to then try to draft up a strategy. Everybody wants a solution, but it has to be a wholesome solution. We cannot just pick something that is not going to help Canadians with what they are facing today and what they are going to face tomorrow. As to budgeting, we have to take a serious look at that. We have to start limiting foreign aid and keeping a lot of that money so we can help Canadians in every situation, whether we are talking about affordability, flooding or forest fires.”

“The government talks about spending $4 billion on clean drinking water. But studies show that 43 cents of every dollar goes to administration, lawyers, and consultants instead. I want to know what the member thinks about that.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberal government here, as in many other acts and bills, will always talk about billions and billions of dollars. In this case, we are talking about $4 billion going toward clean drinking water. However, all the studies say that 43% of every dollar that goes toward these types of initiatives ends up in administration or lawyers or consultants. Does the member have any comments with regard to that?”

“The Prime Minister rushed the Pacific link project with only two months of talks, and made different promises to different First Nations. I want him to answer whether he will require agreement from all 129 First Nations before he approves the pipeline.”

“Madam Speaker, this is exactly what the Prime Minister claimed, that he provided full, meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples, and he has made different promises to different First Nations. Is he seeking consensus or following UNDRIP commitments while fast-tracking the Pacific link major project designation with only two months of consultation? Will the Prime Minister only approve the pipeline if all the 129-plus nations provide consent?”

“The Liberals talk about helping First Nations get clean drinking water, but they fight First Nations in court over it. I want my colleague to comment on this contradiction.”

“Madam Speaker, first nations Canadians should know that this is the track record of the Liberal government. It promised to put in a framework to do something in the future, and the first nations leaders, including me, have heard this so many times before. First nations leaders and Canadians should understand that it is a great speech from the Liberal government, and a great bill, so it says, but in the meantime, it is opposing first nations in court that want to have clean drinking water in their communities. It is appealing decisions that it lost in court. Does my colleague have an opinion on the doublespeak the Liberal government is employing against clean drinking water?”

“The government approved the Trans Mountain pipeline even though some First Nations did not agree to it. Will the government do the same thing with the new Pacific link pipeline?”

“Mr. Speaker, that was a very comprehensive speech. It actually related to everything I have learned over the last 20 years. I will not say “rights and title” but “indigenous interests”. In relation to indigenous interests, the Prime Minister said the content of UNDRIP would not be affected by a pipeline going to the Pacific coast. However, with the original Trans Mountain pipeline, there were first nations that did not give their consent to the pipeline, yet the project was still approved. Are we expecting something similar with the Pacific link pipeline as proposed?”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“Only the biggest global corporations can afford to do business in Canada. We want to change that, so life is more affordable and more people invest here.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear we have a reserve for our maple syrup. Haisla had the same question. We are just a small native band. We were wondering the same thing about why Canadian investors would not invest in major projects. The simple answer came back that they cannot afford it. Only the largest multinational corporations can afford to do business in Canada. What we are trying to do on this side of the House is to change that, to make life affordable and make it more investable.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 39 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 31 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“A report said consultations with Indigenous people for the Pacific Link pipeline will last only two months. That is not enough time to properly respect their rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, in talking about indigenous consultation, there was a story that came out that said that the consultation for the Pacific link pipeline to Vancouver was going to be two months long. Does that reflect meaningful consultation of aboriginal rights and title?”

“Hundreds of Canadian steelworkers are losing their jobs while the government lets a major project use Chinese steel. The government knew about this. Why did it not stand up for Canadian workers and businesses?”

“Mr. Speaker, 350 Canadian steelworkers are losing their job at Stelco, all while the government knew and allowed LNG Canada phase two to use Chinese steel. The Liberal government granted a remission order on anti-dumping duties in phase one, so it cannot claim ignorance. Why did the Liberals not fight for Canadian-made steel, for Canadian jobs and for Canadian businesses?”

“This bill breaks the government's promises to Indigenous people and ignores court rulings. The courts say the government cannot pre-approve projects on lands where Indigenous rights might be hurt without consulting and accommodating them first. How will the government move forward if Indigenous groups do not agree to these land designations and activities?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member’s speech made significant mention of aboriginal rights and title without actually talking about aboriginal rights and title. There are so many clauses in this bill that affect rights and title and affect the promises made under UNDRIP by the government. One in particular is about enabling the designation of regions of national interest in areas such as energy corridors, transportation corridors and industrial corridors for the purposes of pre-approval. This is an interesting dilemma, because the courts have already said that we cannot have a pre-approval if we are aware of a decision that might infringe on rights and title. We must consult and accommodate. In this equation, we are asking two questions of rights and title: designation of land and the activity. How will the government proceed if it does not get consent on either of these activities?”

“Conservatives have a plan to make life more affordable. We found over $150 billion in government spending to cut. This will lower debt, taxes, and inflation. We also want to cut taxes on building homes, gas, and Canadian-made cars.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are back in Ottawa with a plan to save Canadians money and make life more affordable. We have identified more than $150 billion in savings by cutting wasteful bureaucracy, unnecessary consultants, foreign aid, handouts to fraudulent asylum claimants, corporate welfare and money-losing boondoggles like Alto rail. These savings would bring down debt, taxes and inflation and put more money back in the pockets of Canadians. We would save Canadians money on housing by scrapping taxes on home construction and pressing local governments to speed up permits, free up land and reduce fees. Conservatives would save us money on fuel and groceries by scrapping all taxes on gas until at least Canada Day and save people money on vehicles while supporting the auto workers by removing the GST on vehicles made in Canada. I know families across Skeena—Bulkley Valley are hurting right now. That is why my Conservative colleagues and I are fighting hard to cut wasteful spending, lower costs and make life more affordable for Canadians.”

In response to a question from Linda Lapointe

“I agree with the one-year timeline, but only if the rules are clear and follow court decisions on Indigenous rights. We cannot put arbitrary time limits on those rights. This bill contradicts itself on this issue, and the government has not fixed it.”

“Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, yes, I agree with one year, as long as the process is followed and is described clearly and, by the way, as long as the case law is followed that has been laid out by the courts on how to address rights and title. We cannot put an arbitrary time limit on the rights and title of first nations people. That is what I am talking about when I talk about the contradiction in Bill C-39. There is no answer to that.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →